memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Deep Space 9/archive
FA nomination ;Deep Space 9: Self-nomination. A detailed article about the history of DS9, plus a description of its structure. It could probably use some minor additions for incidental facts and the like, but it's complete enough to deserve Featured Article status! -- Dan Carlson 20:00, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST) * Seconded. Ottens 20:15, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST) * Seconded. -- Redge 20:25, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST) * Support. -- Michael Warren 22:57, 10 Jun 2004 (CEST) Upgrades Is there anything on the weapon-overhaul O'Brien performed? With the nice flashy trop launchers and multiple phasers? I'm looking forward to reading about that (wouldn't mind a picture or two either;-) -- Redge 19:39, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST) Contact with the Kellerun and T'Lani Are we sure that DS9 made contact with the Kellerun and T'Lani? I thought they were simply dispatched there as an errand? (I thought they were Alpha Quadrant powers too) -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 17:59, 7 Feb 2005 (CET) : As I recall from watching the episode yesterday on Spike, they were from the Alpha quadrant. There was some key line that heavily implied that they were, something along the lines of sending a subspace message to Starfleet Command while at T'Lani III. Since this was before the wormhole transmitter (placed in Season 3's "Destiny") was in service, the only way they could contact Starfleet was if they were in the same quadrant. --Alan del Beccio 18:44, 4 Aug 2005 (UTC) Non-appearances Would there be much point in stating when the station did not appear? and are the only ones I can think of. -- Tough Little Ship 18:40, 4 Aug 2005 (UTC) Weapon Info Where did the weapon info come from? It seems that there is no source that the tactical systems info came from. It never specifed the number of launchers or phaser banks in the show. But it did say 5000 warheads. Tobyk777 01:15, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC) Size A puzzlement: the DS9 Technical Manual states that this is one of the largest space facilities known. However, rewatching , it appears that Starbase 74 must dwarf DS9, considering that a hatch taking up only a small portion of 74's surface area was large enough to engulf the . ::We can assume this is just a goof on the part of the DS9TM because we have seen many starbases bigger than DS9. Jaz talk | novels 19:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC) Merge with Terok Nor It's stupid to have both a Terok Nor page and a Deep Space 9 page. Let's merge 'em! 05:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC) :Or not. Terok Nor talks about the station under Cardassian rule, this article talks about it under Federation/Bajoran rule. They are practically different stations under the different ownerships. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC) :: I second Cobra's statement. In an DS9 Episode (can't remember what one) Dukat is talking with Captain Sisko and he (Dukat) mentions something along the lines of "..on what I'm sure you are calling Deep Space Nine again..." ::Also, Deep Space Nine (the station) refers to a Federation space station. Terok Nor refers to a Cardassian (affiliation) space station. While the station may be Cardassian in design and origin, the names distinguish who is in control of the station. Just my two slips. Mainphramephreak 08:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC) ::: I would have to say merge both into one article. Technically both, DS9 and Terok Nor are one and the same spacestation. Their names only refer to the people who controlled the station at a particular point in time. Afterall, the station was first called Terok Nor and after that DS9. If they would be different spacestations why mention Terok Nor in the history part of DS9? This article is about the station itself and what happened on it during its known lifetime, not about the people who were in charge of it at a particular time or who owned the station. -- Q 09:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC) :::: I agree with Q, if uh...votes are being collected, that is. cap97 23:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC) ::::: I also want it to get merged for the same reason Q said. 18:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC) :::::: That thread-title leaves something to be desired, but, here's a "vote" of merge (per User:Q's reasoning). Makes sense. --Sasoriza 06:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC) :::::::I have to vote no to merging the two articles, because I feel that, while both Deep Space 9 and Terok Nor are the same station in many respects, the Federation made some serious modifications to it when the Cardassians withdrew in 2369. The weapons array was completly overhauled to be able to combat the Dominion and the Klingons, it went from being an ore-processing facility to a station of commerse and repair. Furthermore, the history behind the two is very different - Terok Nor is associated with the Occupation of Bajor and brutality, while Deep Space Nine has a connotation of peace and rebuilding. Keep the two articles seperate is my vote. - Thot Prad, 17:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC) ::::::::My vote goes for yes to the merge, and I'm surprised this is an issue at all. Terok Nor or DS9, it's still physically the same space station. Having a Terok Nor page and a DS9 page is about the same as having an Enterprise-D page and an Enterprise-D(briefly owned by the Ferengi) page. 03:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Message in Braille? Has anyone tried to decode the lights that appear on the outermost ring of the station, as shown during transitional shots? It looks a lot like Braille to me, and I wondered if someone might be trying to sneak in something clever to read. :Braille is divided into cells 3 dots tall and 2 dots wide, I don't think the widows are arranged like that anywhere. If you find a pic of a part that looks possible, I guess I can take a look. – AJHayson 05:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC) Which article "deep space nine/9" goes to When a person types in Deep Space Nine and clicks go, it really should redirect to the series, not the station itself.. I mean the series is named DS9.. that's a bigger topic :I'm making it a disambig. --Bp 08:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Station Layout (P.O.V.) Isn't the "Station Layout" section written in the wrong tense? Shouldn't it be "was" instead of "is", etc.? -Taduolus 21:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC) :As of currently, Deep Space 9 is believed to still be in operation, and thus the station layout is still true to the 'present' Trek period. Thus, the tense is correct ;) - Enzo Aquarius 21:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC) ::Except for the whole POV/tense discussion which suggests that we're looking back from far into the future, thus making it simpler to put everything into past tense for consistency. :) -- Sulfur 22:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC) :::Hmm, touche indeed. Haven't seen that yet ;) - Enzo Aquarius 22:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC) ::::I agree with Sulfur's point about looking back and keeping everything in the past tense even if the subject is still in existence - keeps it simple and consistent :o) -Taduolus 22:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC) A51 Do we know if "A51" is the reference number to the actual area? Those types of application labels are shown all over the place throughout TNG, DS9 and Voyager and usually are random numbers or state decks. If we have something like this, what's stopping people from making 'Access Hatch 047' if they see an application label with such information? - Enzo Aquarius 03:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC) :I think if it's been seen on screen then people should be welcome to make a page about it. There are countless articles about stuff that's been seen on terminals throughout this site. Besides, I think the A51 (area 51) is an in-joke.--Babaganoosh 03:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC) ...the vultures are circling--Babaganoosh 03:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC) A51 appears to essentially be a access tunnel, why not merge the article into that? The in-joke could also be put in that article (if it was merged) and/or the background section for the episode. - Enzo Aquarius 03:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC) ::Good information, but it doesn't need its own article. I agree with a merge of history and info to Jefferies tube. --From Andoria with Love 06:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC) :::Yeah, it's just a hatch with an in-joke label. It should be moved to access tunnel (wow, that page doesn't exist yet), I wouldn't create a subsection for the Cardassian tunnels at Jefferies tubes because the Cardassians wouldn't call them that. :::In the episode, Kira calles it a: "secured conduit rigged with alarms". When Rom opens the hatch with a label, we see that the small space between it is filled with Cardassian circuitry, he doesn't climb through th hatch, he just opens it and has access to the circuitry, but then the alarm goes off. Finally, On a shot preceding the one that babaganoosh uploaded, the label is seen in a close-up. It reads: A51 | RESTRICTED AREA and underneath in smaller writing AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL ONLY. We can assume that the Cardassian label to the left of the Federation one states the same, in, who'd have guessed it, Cardassian...;-) Cool find nontheless! Should be added to the page as well (at least for as long as we don't have that access tunnel or access conduit page yet. --Jörg 09:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Time Doesn't Deep Space Nine have a 26 hour day? I'm not sure, but I think I remember hearing this in an episode once. Also, is this to emulate Bajoran time, Cardassian time, or neither? 70.248.49.72 03:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC) :The station ran on Bajoran time, which has a 26-hour-day. --From Andoria with Love 00:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC) The station also rotates once every 26 hours. --70.77.37.70 12:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC) :Where are you getting that info from? --OuroborosCobra talk 18:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC) ::The fact that DS9 rotates is seen in many shots with a view on the outside: the starfield outside of the window moves at a perceptible speed. this does not state anything about the actual rotation speed, however. -- Bakabaka 15:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC) :::Well, there are several episodes that refer to 26 hours, 52 hours, etc. For example, in "The Wire," Bashir says that he'll be back in 52 hours, as opposed to 48. And in "Fascination," the Bajoran gratitude festivel lasts for 26 hours, or one day. Not sure if this helps, but, it seems to make sense that the station works on a 26 hour system. --Nmajmani 02:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Official Long Name? I'm certain I've heard DS9 referred to as "Starbase Deep Space 9" before. And it is, technically at least, a starbase. -- 12:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC) :Yes, but that isn't part of the name. Similarly to how the Nimitz is sometimes called the "aircraft carrier Nimitz, its title is still "USS Nimitz". --OuroborosCobra talk 18:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC) ::There are at least two instances where the station was called "Starbase Deep Space 9" (where it was also capitalized in the scripts), and both of them were more formal situations. It is possible that its title is "Starbase Deep Space 9", as Starbase 47's title includes the Starbase, as well as Starbase Montgomery and Star Station India, but there is not much hard evidence to support it. I guess I would stick with Deep Space 9, but you've got a point there, 70.77. --Bp 19:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC) :Capitalized in the script? That is interesting... --OuroborosCobra talk 19:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC) :::What were the two scripts? -- Taduolus 19:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC) ::From , "This is Chief Miles O'Brien from Starbase Deep Space Nine... state your business." http://www.twiztv.com/scripts/ds9/season2/ds9-225.txt, and from , "This is Commander Benjamin Sisko of the Federation Starbase Deep Space Nine." http://www.twiztv.com/scripts/ds9/season3/ds9-308.txt. That second one has the "..of the Federation.." which makes it ambiguous. I'd like to see how it was said in the episode, and appeared in the subs. --Bp 20:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC) :Also the episodes where Sisko talks to Joran Dax's brother and says: "I'm Commander Benjamin Sisko of the Federation Starbase Deep Space Nine..." (capitalized in script) and Prophet Motive where "Doctor Julian Bashir, Chief Medical Officer of Starbase Deep Space 9" (capitalized in script) is nominated for the Carrington Award. I found the scripts here, and watched the episodes and can confirm these lines were said onscreen. I do think DS9's "official" full name is "Starbase Deep Space 9." -- 15:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Attached Ships? Should there be a section that mentions/list the known attached ships to DS9? Such as the Defiants and the various runabouts (they are "ships" arn't they?)--Terran Officer 07:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC) :Probably, along with an explaination as to why the Defiant didn't have her own Captain. Federation 05:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC) ::Added a new section for "Support Vessels", a little history on them and a list of current and former ones. ----[[User:Mainphramephreak| Willie]][[User Talk:Mainphramephreak| LLAP]] 15:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC) Spelling Is there any particular reason that the name of the station is written with the numeral "9", but the name of the series spells it out as "Nine"? Just a little curiosity on my part.... 04:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC) :Well, there IS a reason the series article name spells out "nine". See Good question about the station article's name, though: Anyone got info? SennySix 21:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC) ::'Deep Space 9' links to the article on the station as a way to differentiate them.--31dot 21:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC) :::That and we went with the same practice as all other stations and starships... the "registry" is listed as a number rather than being spelled out. :) -- Sulfur 21:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Quote J u s t i n added the following header quote: "Think of it. Five years ago, no one had ever heard of Bajor or Deep Space Nine and now, all our hopes, rest here. Where the tides of fortune take us no man can know." : - Chancellor Gowron, ( ) which was removed by OuroborosCobra because: "no, we are not putting these basically useless and non-descriptive quotes everywhere". While I agree that many of the quotes added by said user are not very useful, I really think that this quote is indeed a good one. It sums up the significance of the subject well, and is interesting. It is very similar to the Benjamin Sisko quote, which seems to be accepted. – Cleanse 03:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC) :Only accepted because I hadn't found it to kill it yet... --OuroborosCobra talk 04:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC) So you have an opposition to quotes in general? If so I think you should bring it up on the forums because many, many, pages have quotes. In my opinion, such quotes fall under Memory Alpha:Inform and entertain. But more significantly, a good quote livens up articles and gives the reader a nice introduction. – Cleanse 05:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)